And I guess when these malcontents burn down their own ghettos, that will somehow be Whitey's fault also and as Papa Bush did in the Rodney King Pillagings, Junior will rush in promising another massive round of welfare handouts.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Three Christian peace activists held by Iraqi insurgents have been rescued by U.S. and British military forces.

Though the story makes clear that the hostages were freed without firing a shot, I don't imagine the soldiers went into a potentially hostile environment unprepared or unprotected.

And that brings us to an interesting point.

If it is the position of these peace activists that it is an abomination before the eyes of God to even have a military or that it is wrong to use force to overcome evil in all instances, shouldn't these prisoners have been willing to remain in the custody of their captors, who are themselves merely adherents of the "religion of peace" responding to the aggression of decadent Western powers, until social workers or other do-gooder types arrived on the scene to negotiate their release through rational persuasion alone?

As with others disposed towards such idealistic nonsense, the inability to defend oneself is an ethical demand to be imposed on everyone else rather than upon those in the vanguard of the revolutionary consciousness.

Opposing specific military actions is one thing. Disavowing the right to fight all together is something else entirely.

These peace activists, refusing to realize the inherent evil of the terrorist enemy, only have themselves to blame for their frightening ordeal. They should merely thank the Lord that someone would come to their rescue with guns blazing had the need arisen.

Establishmentarian conservatives have denounced this film despite the fact that its protagonist is standing against a regime clearly reminiscient of Fascist and Nazi totalitarianism.

I wonder how they square this with their admiration of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other Christians that have taken action against tyrannical regimes throughout history.

Are they going to chastize Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance for blowing up the Death Star and Peter and Edmund for attacking Narnia's White Witch since to do so would not be a proper act of submission to authority according to radical noninterventionist Evangelical social theology? If not, why then get after this costumed hero?

I don't remember many Christians complaining about the assasination of the Anti-Christ in the Left Behind Series. So from this are we to conclude we are to condemn sic semper tyrannis when "one of our own" is inflicting undeserved misery upon the masses?

If we can't even stand up to government heavies in acts of imagination now, what freedoms are left for us?

Sartre of Breaking All The Rules and The Columnist News Good does an insightful job of analyzing this movie with what seems like a provocative plot and a captivating visual appeal.

Monday, March 27, 2006

I guess this will eventually become such a fad within the church as well that those not consumating their marriages will come to be seen as somehow holier than those that do just as those favoring the arranged marriages popular in the courtship movement are being applauded as more religious than those that date.

One can't base marriage on sex, but if one is going to leave it out of marriage all together, why even bother getting married to begin with since there would be little there as an award for putting up with the nagging and bickering endemic to any human relationship confined to tight quarters since both pleasure and progeny have been removed from such nuptial equations. Furthermore, since such people have sworn off these most basic of desires, does this mean they lack the desire of the higher psychological and emotional fulfillment that comes from kissing and hand-holding?

I guess by even raising such a question, I have shown myself less advanced or spiritual. However, I find it interesting that the movement even has chatrooms and the like, but why would one go to a chatroom focused on one's sexuality (or lack thereof) if one had no interest in others of a similar sexual persuasion?

Frankly from the wimpish appearance of the couple posted alongside the story (he with girlsh long hair and her with a pale, malnourished look), wouldn't suprise me if most of these folks were vegetarians (probably pacifists too) and might reinvigorate their elan vital if they merely got some meat into their stomachs.

It has been said all of civilization is an attempt to impress the opposite sex. While one does not have to be a slave to this particular aspect of human nature, much of human accomplishment would be quite diminished without it.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Many contemporary liberals have taken it upon themselves to advocate tolerance and understanding as the highest social values. Such self-professed ambassadors of magnanimity usually extend these principles to everyone except those they disagree with.

Each year, my columns addressing the attacks upon the Christmas holiday elicit a number of emotional responses. My essay expounding the attempts by environmentalists to stifle enjoyment of the Advent season prompted a number of ultrapluralists to expose their true colors.

One such critic began, “This article...was too full of name calling, stereotypes, and mean spiritedness. It is very opinionated and one sided. Rang of the all too familiar ‘Rush Limbaugh’ lets bash everyone who is not like us.”

While it is an honor in the content of the column in question to be compared to Rush Limbaugh, I ask you is not the offended pluralist the one engaged in “name calling, stereotypes, and mean spiritedness”? Of course, my column was “very opinionated and one sided”. It’s suppose to be one sided; that’s why it’s called an “opinion piece”.

There is no “Fairness Doctrine” that applies to commentaries and editorials. If someone wants to consider what the other side has to say and has way too much time on their hands, one is perfectly free to consult the National Wildlife article I originally referenced.

Interestingly, this insistence upon objectivity is usually only imposed upon conservative thinkers and ideologues. I don’t remember the National Wildlife or Carroll County Times articles clarifying that holiday over-consumption was merely the opinion of a few disgruntled academics and activists with other scientists feeling differently about the matter.

Furthermore, who is a scientist to say something is too much or not enough since it is not the place of science to make such value judgments? When they do, they veer off into the realm of philosophy. Nor do I remember an evenhanded approach being taken by this professed disciple of evenhandedness.

The criticism does not stop here and proceeds on in a similar vein. The comment continues in its haughty progressivist tone, “It lacked any reference to the obligation commanded to be good stewards, it offered no options or alternatives.”

Firstly, there is no provision attached to the First Amendment saying one has to sit there with your mouth shut unless you have a solution to the problem you feel the need to speak out against. Sometimes the best solution to a problem that really isn’t much of a problem is not to apply any solution at all. Some things just really aren’t any of the government’s business.

Americans have been celebrating Christmas for quite a while now. Why all of a sudden do we need the government and tenured professors telling us how to celebrate it?

There is far more waste going on in society (often in government) than whether or not I buy a present someone really doesn’t need apart from the pleasure I will derive seeing the joy I will bring into the life of the loved one I decide to give the gift to. Furthermore, who is to decide whether or not I need that extra present --- Barbara Streisand or Arianna Huffington as they live on their palatial estates and ride around in limousines?

Claiming this is a matter of Christian stewardship is stretching that concept in some areas and misapplying it in others. The Apocalypse won’t result if I use a little too much wrapping paper or have an extra slice of pumpkin pie. There is no reason to be wound that tight.

If someone is going to get all worked up into a twitter that Christmas as commonly celebrated is a misuse of resources worthy of widespread social intervention, shouldn’t they be spending the most valuable commodity they’ll ever possess --- namely their time --- in a manner far better than responding to online blogs? To paraphrase a classic adage, those who can, write blogs; those who can’t, post comments.

Better yet, if every decision we make is to be characterized by the utmost sobriety of Christian stewardship and responsibility, should those that feel this way even have the Internet at all? Wouldn’t that $20 a month be better spent elsewhere if we are going to get all jacked out of shape that someone bought at extra DVD this Christmas instead of sending a check to some televangelist so he can buy another gilded throne for his set or more pink hair dye for his wife?

The criticism continues, “it [the original column] offered no options or alternatives.” Other than people minding their own business as to how others spend their money at Christmas time, what other alternatives are there?” I am not the one calling people to change the way they live their lives in terms of this issue to make Al Gore happy or whatever else it is an emotional Popsicle like him happens to feel.

Back in the days before we were conditioned into thinking government, academia, or the media knew how to run our lives better than we do and when people went to church to hear about their individual relationship with God and not about the imperatives of submitting to the glories of the community, people use to make decisions like how they’d celebrate Christmas on their own. Seems the communitarians are as thrifty with backbones as they are about allowing people to enjoy themselves without Big Brother staring over their shoulders.

This effusively sensitive ascetic concludes by exhibiting a bit of an elitist streak by saying of the commentary, “Too-done too many times and there wasn’t any new voice in the piece.” In other words, if someone at a pay-grade above yours has already said something similar to what’s on your mind, you’d better keep your mouth shut.

Frankly though, isn’t everything said since ancient times simply variations on a theme? Alfred North Whitehead said all of Western thought is but a footnote to Plato and the Bible puts it as there is nothing new under the sun. Since that’s the case, if liberals really cared all that much about the various forms of pollution including that of unneeded noise, shouldn’t they cease their yammering as well?

Winston Churchill is credited with saying the following: under 30 and conservative, you have no heart; over 30 and liberal, you have no head. The worldview espoused by liberals is so devoid of logic and commonsense that they themselves refuse to adhere to the rigors and demands which they expect those of us of inferior intellectual caliber to themselves to abide by.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Three peace activists have been rescued by U.S. and British military forces.

Though the story makes clear that the hostages were freed without firing a shot, I don't imagine the soldiers went into a potentially hostile environment unprepared or unprotected.

And that brings us to an interesting point.

If it is the position of these peace activists that it is an abomination before the eyes of God to even have a military or that it is wrong to use force to overcome evil in all instances, shouldn't these prisoners have been willing to remain in the custody of their captors, who are themselves merely adherents of the "religion of peace" responding to the aggression of decadent Western powers, until social workers or other do-gooder types arrived on the scene to negotiate their release through rational persuasion alone?

As with others disposed towards such idealistic nonsense, the inability to defend oneself is an ethical demand to be imposed on everyone else rather than upon those in the vanguard of the revolutionary consciousness.

Opposing specific military actions is one thing. Disavowing the right to fight all together something else entirely.

These peace activists, refusing to realize the inherent evil of the terrorist enemy, only have themselves to blame for their frightening ordeal. They should merely thank the Lord that someone would come to their rescue with guns blazing had the need arisen.

Monday, March 20, 2006

In the season finale of Battlestar Galactica, the Cylons sent an emissary in the form of a religious minister genetically engineered to look human (that in and of itself an apt metaphor for many of today’s churches) to the Galactica crew claiming the annihilation of the colonies of man had been a mistake and that from that point forward this cybernetic society of robots, cyborgs, and clones would no longer harass, to use Lorne Greene’s words from the original series, “the ragtag, fugitive fleet”.

In light of this development, the newly elected president, Gaius Baltar --- himself a Cylon puppet seduced by the enemy’s lusty fembot --- decided to settle upon a habitable planet. An entire year elapses and it seems the Cylons have proven good on their word; however, one day from out of no where the Cylon fleet appears out of hyperspace.

Since the colonials have largely demilitarized, the Battlestars Galactica and Pegasus are forced to jump away through hyperspace with the remainder of the fleet in order to avoid detection. The episode ends with Baltar surrendering to the Cylon delegation and the metal soldiers with the pulsating red eyes marching through the struggling human settlement.

Those breathing a sigh of relief over the United Arab Emirates seeming to relinquish their claims to a number of America’s most sensitive ports would do well to watch this hauntingly prescient scene.

Due to the backlash by patriotic Americans over news of a number of ports being surrendered to potentially hostile foreign powers, Dubai Ports World has promised to instead transfer control of operations to what has been labeled a “U.S. entity”. Anyone saying the matter is over and the danger now passed is, to use Galactica terminology, full of felgarcarb.

For starters, what “U.S. entity” is control being handed over to? Is this a company we can trust controlled by Americans whose families will themselves be blown away should a weapon of mass destruction make into our ports or will it be some kind of sham front American in name only but manned by foreign personnel or controlled from abroad?

And even if this port fiasco ends up settled in our favor, it’s not the only threat of subversion and infiltration we face from this part of the world. According to Pastor Chuck Baldwin, Dubai has also acquired a British firm that produces parts for U.S. military aircraft and tanks.

Islamophiles will counter, but we are at peace with the United Arab Emirates. So what? Even if we are, what is to prevent them from having these parts sabotaged to prevent them from being used against their ethnic kinsman or fellow coreligionists?

Others will snap, in this global economy, we already have foreign corporations managing vital U.S. assets. And it is a cause for tremendous lamentation.

We’ve already lost control over the Panama Canal and since it’s controlled by a firm known for being a front for the People’s Liberation Army of China, it’s likely we won’t be able to use it in the pending war with China likely to take place later this century.

Maybe now Americans will wake up and realize we have been lulled asleep by our news media with stories about O.J Simpson, Britney Spears not putting her baby in a carseat, and Dick Cheney accidentally shooting a friend in the face.

As the Cylon troops march down the streets and cybernetic fighters fly overhead, Chief Tyrol turns to Starbuck and asks, “What do we do now, captain?” She responds, “Fight like we always do. Fight until we can fight no more.” America’s enemies will never stop plotting to bring about our ultimate downfall and that is why the price of liberty will forever be eternal vigilance.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

A fascinating interview by Radio Liberty of a National Guard chaplain suggesting the levees in New Orleans were deliberately blown and that mercenaries are now roaming the streets down there doing as they please. It is also pointed out how the government intends a massive land-grab primarily for the benefit of gambling interests.

Friday, March 10, 2006

The National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit claiming that fathers should be able to opt out of providing child support for unwanted children.

After all, if a mother has the so-called "right" to have the baby killed, it only naturally follows that an equally self-absorbed father should be able to follow the relatively more benign course of action of total non-involvement in the life of the child.

While the idea is almost as preposterous as allowing the woman the right to end a pregnancy, Concerned Women for America is jumping on board criticism of this lawsuit as a chance to vent the anti-male bias percolating beneath the surface of contemporary Evangelicalism.

In the organization's press release addressing the legal action, it reads, "Fathers must start acting like men and accept responsibility for their actions. This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to save a few bucks and get out of kid duty. They need to wake up, smell the diapers, and realize that fatherhood is a beautiful and huge responsibility, which affects the lives of children and our society as a whole.”

While absolutely correct, when was the last time mainstream, religious conservatives took a stand this boldly against the women that have had their innocent children murdered in the name of convenience?

Maybe we should call on women to act like real women to step forward to either keep their pants on if they don't want children, to keep their offspring if they decide to go out and become in the family way anyway, and not pawn the results off on everyone else to take care of.

But instead these days of labelling sin "sin" for what it is and calling on righteous living on the part of all without regards to gender and to take responsibility for their own actions, it's those that speak out plainly against such deeds that are lectured on how the poor woman couldn’t help herself and how it's our fault for not signing over what little remains of our paychecks after having taxes removed to finance the deviancy of all the other dregs of society.

If women these days want to be seen as equals with men, it's about time people rose up and told them off as well in those matters where their irresponsible actions endanger the well-being of us all.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

You better not have a runny nose or watery eyes or you might run afoul of the Patriot Act.

Provisions are being added to this legislation, infamous for troubling libertarians from both ends of the political spectrum, that will limit the amount of pseudoephedrine an individual can purchase and require the purchaser to produce a photo ID in order to complete the transaction. Always good to condition the free citizen to bow before authorities in order to remind the humble supplicant of his place before the slave master.

Where will this nonsense end?

Maybe we should herd everyone into designated relocation camps for their own safety; after all, investigations indicate terrorists are more likely to plot such acts when concealed behind closed doors and private residences and it was said in Nam that the village had to be burned to the ground to save it.

Since the epidemic of childhood obesity threatens military recruiting goals in the future, perhaps government sanctioned nutritional accounts should be established where a computerized identification system could be used to determine what foods the individual will be allowed to eat. After all, this is a matter of Homeland Security.

Those prone to think as they are told by those with offices and degrees scoff, but food is legal. But so is Sudafed and is a perfectly legitimate product until abused as meth.

One might say the obese are misusing food. Should the government intervene to prevent it?

I guess to the some radical supporters of El Presidente, this very post is an act of sedition since freedom of expression is a "privilege" that can no longer be countenanced in the war on terror.

In remarks supporting the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, Senator Jim Bunning remarked civil liberties don't mean much when you are dead. So adhering to such logic, Hitler, Stalin, and the like didn't really do anything wrong until they started tossing their people into gas ovens or having them freeze to death in work camps but were within the realm of propriety to break down doors in the middle of the night without cause, riffle through people's possessions for no reason, and to move their populations about as they see fit all in an attempt to thwart the perceived enemies of the superstate.

Friday, March 03, 2006

It's one thing if advocates of the courtship movement want to insist that the young person must defer to one's parents in terms of selecting a mate since that is a matter internal to each home and families must determine these limits for themselves.

However, aren't things getting just a little bit out of hand when it is established as an expectation that the individual must consult church authorties in regards to this personal matter?

Just how far does this issue of church discipline extend: maybe we should have Pastor make our evening meal selections for us as well? If we as Christians are suppose to go out in such a state of dimwitted humility, why don't we allow the church to determine where we are to live and what kind of career we are to pursue while we are at it.

Listeners should note this audio program points out that often those wishing to join Purpose Driven Churches are required to take various psychological and personality tests before being granted memembership. Some even require one to take marriage-like vows.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

A pregnant woman shot herself in the stomach in an attempt to slay her progeny. Unfortunately the child, rather than the mother, died.

Police have arrested this sorry excuse of a human being. However, they have not done so on the grounds of murder.

Virginia Commonwealth attorney's are careful to point out that, since the baby girl had not taken a breath, the charge is actually illegally inducing an abortion, a crime carrying a sentence of a mere 10 years.

However, had this woman gone to an abortion facility, splayed apart her legs, allowed the abortionists to scoop out the fruit of her womb, smash open the child's skull, and suck out the brains, she would be applauded by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as some kind suffragette heroine.

Thus in the eyes of the radical feminists and their secular humanist associates, the crime is not so much that a child has died in this tragedy but that some so-called "Doctor" will have to work an extra hour or two for that new set of golf clubs. For if child was not yet human, why shouldn’t this unmarried deadbeat mother be allowed to blow her innards apart; after all --- her body, her choice we are told the rest of the time.